Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Elizabeth I]

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

From the source cited in post 604:

The importance of the vast number of manuscripts copies cannot be overstated. This abundance of manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy...[3]

...In the words of Dockery, Mathews and Sloan: “For most of the Biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of text about which any questions occur.”[11] They conclude: “It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature…..Although there are certain differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” [12]

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Aaaand there he goes again with Windmill Ministries.

 

[temporalillusion]

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

Your arbitrary 25,000 number is meaningless.

Why would you include translations out of the original language in that group? How on earth would a translation of a Greek manuscript tell us anything about the autograph?

So really your argument of consistency should be limited to the 5700 original Greek manuscripts. Of which incidentally there are no two which agree. Out of 5700 original Greek manuscripts, not a single one has the exact same text as any other one.

There are likely more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

Given that, any subsequent translations would have the same problems depending on which mms was used in translation, who did the translation, etc.

There are no originals, any % accuracy estimate to the originals is speculative and really only useful to justify belief to those who's faith is not sufficient and require some kind of (made up) evidence to support their faith.

 

[tsig]

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

Would god still exist if the numbers were reversed?

 

[tsig]

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.




http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

If you've got the originals to compare them to then why not just use the originals?

 

[eccles]

The only unbiased source of information about the bible is:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2009-8/1345110/crosses.jpg

Edited by Locknar: 

Hotlink removed, breach of Rule 4.

Edited by Locknar: 

URL removed due to breach of Rules 2 & 4.

The Holy Gospel according to St. Monty Python

Please do not hotlink content (Rule 4) or post/link to material in breach of Rule 2. More information can be found in your Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[zooterkin]

Your arbitrary 25,000 number is meaningless.

It's particularly meaningless as he was using this number to bolster his assertion that there would be plenty of copies of the gospels in circulation at the time when Christians were being oppressed by the Romans. Since this stopped around 300 AD, using figures which count documents up to the Middle Ages is meaningless.

 

[amb]

Careful, though: there are primary sources, and that's a pretty useful textual criticism. One of the glaring errors in debates like the supposed historicity of Jesus is that the narrative has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that in many ways the current rendition in no way represents earlier (or the earliest) renditions. This is a useful consideration for both those arguing in the positive as well as those arguing the negative in the "historical Jesus" debate. In many ways, this is also applicable to many different claims about biblical accuracy, since the Christian bible is such an evolved text of interpretations atop interpretations, not just copies of copies or translations of translations.

And don't even get me started on doctrines, which seem to evolve a great deal over varying spans of time (though progressively shorter spans in modern times) and are at best laughable in their claims of steadfastness.

Have a look at the myths of Mitharism. The coincidences are to numerous to ignore. What if the whole Jesus story is just a continuation of this myth. Added to of course through the centuries.

 

[DOC]

It's particularly meaningless as he was using this number to bolster his assertion that there would be plenty of copies of the gospels in circulation at the time when Christians were being oppressed by the Romans. Since this stopped around 300 AD, using figures which count documents up to the Middle Ages is meaningless.

It's a wonder any manuscripts survived (not to mention Christianity itself) with a emperor like Diocletian around from 284-305 ad.

From Wiki on Diocletian:

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built church at Nicomedia be razed. He demanded that its scriptures be burned, and seized its precious stores for the treasury.[169] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[170] The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[171] Before the end of February, a fire destroyed part of the imperial palace.[172] Galerius convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, conspirators who had plotted with the eunuchs of the palace. An investigation was commissioned, but no responsible party was found. Executions followed anyway, and the palace eunuchs Dorotheus and Gorgonius were executed. One individual, Peter, was stripped, raised high, and scourged. Salt and vinegar were poured in his wounds, and he was slowly boiled over an open flame. The executions continued until at least April 24, 303, when six individuals, including the bishop Anthimus, were decapitated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

Thousands of Christians were killed and tortured under Diocletian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3k...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[zooterkin]

It's a wonder any manuscripts survived (not to mention Christianity itself) with a emperor like Diocletian around from 284-305 ad.

From Wiki on Diocletian:

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built church at Nicomedia be razed. He demanded that its scriptures be burned, and seized its precious stores for the treasury.[169] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[170] The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[171] Before the end of February, a fire destroyed part of the imperial palace.[172] Galerius convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, conspirators who had plotted with the eunuchs of the palace. An investigation was commissioned, but no responsible party was found. Executions followed anyway, and the palace eunuchs Dorotheus and Gorgonius were executed. One individual, Peter, was stripped, raised high, and scourged. Salt and vinegar were poured in his wounds, and he was slowly boiled over an open flame. The executions continued until at least April 24, 303, when six individuals, including the bishop Anthimus, were decapitated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

Thousands of Christians were killed and tortured under Diocletian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3k...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You do recall why you brought this point up to start with, don't you? To refresh your memory:

It's funny how the Romans (for whom the Christians were causing all kinds of problems for almost 300 years) never said, "Hey Luke was wrong -- there was no taxation or census done by us around the time of Christ's birth in that area. You've got to ask yourself, why not. Surely the Romans took the time to read the most popular gospels circulating around -- they had about 240 years to do it. Why didn't they just say, Luke made that up?

The most obvious answer would be that man who has been called one of the world's great historians didn't make it up.

So, should the Romans have been taking the time to read the documents at the same time as they are burning them?

 

[joobz]

So, should the Romans have been taking the time to read the documents at the same time as they are burning them?

Has anyone else noticed that DOC's arguments have become more and more contradictory?

 

[eccles]

"So, should the Romans have been taking the time to read the documents at the same time as they are burning them? "

That is what priests and Penguins (nuns) do with confiscated copies of "Playboy"

 

[DC]

"So, should the Romans have been taking the time to read the documents at the same time as they are burning them? "

That is what priests and Penguins (nuns) do with confiscated copies of "Playboy"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

eerrrm you can READ the playboy?
i know noone doing that.

 

[eccles]

Exodus 24
16And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

17And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

18And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

What was with Moses and God. Were they GAY?

 

[eccles]

Good Night

Good Night all. I'm going to bed-- ALONE

 

[DC]

Jesus is with you

 

[Marduk]

What was with Moses and God. Were they GAY?

stoners

 

[GreNME]

Have a look at the myths of Mitharism. The coincidences are to numerous to ignore. What if the whole Jesus story is just a continuation of this myth. Added to of course through the centuries.

They're not coincidences. The Jesus cult and the Mithras cult were developing around the same time and in relatively the same area. Be careful not to confuse the Roman cult with the Persian mythological figure (as many seem to do), because you may as well be talking about two separate mythical entities. I'm not saying there wasn't intermingling between the two, but the Jesus story a continuation of the Mithras story? Mithras' story was (starting out) essentially the Hellenistic story of Perseus retold with changed names-- including different names for Jupiter and the rest of the gods & beasts involved in the narrative (including the Gorgon). The story, much like the tale of Jesus and other woulda-beens of the first few centuries, evolved over the course of the subsequent centuries and competed with the other cults for predominance. Ultimately, Christianity gained dominance and the Mithras cults went the way of the dodo. It could have just as easily worked out the other way around, and today we would be positing whether the tale of our glorious Mithras had for some reason borrowed from this Jesus story that died out long ago.

There's a common thread between the two religions, but it's not what you seem to imply.

 

[Simon39759]

It's a wonder any manuscripts survived (not to mention Christianity itself) with a emperor like Diocletian around from 284-305 ad.

From Wiki on Diocletian:

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built church at Nicomedia be razed. He demanded that its scriptures be burned, and seized its precious stores for the treasury.[169] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[170] The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[171] Before the end of February, a fire destroyed part of the imperial palace.[172] Galerius convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, conspirators who had plotted with the eunuchs of the palace. An investigation was commissioned, but no responsible party was found. Executions followed anyway, and the palace eunuchs Dorotheus and Gorgonius were executed. One individual, Peter, was stripped, raised high, and scourged. Salt and vinegar were poured in his wounds, and he was slowly boiled over an open flame. The executions continued until at least April 24, 303, when six individuals, including the bishop Anthimus, were decapitated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian

Thousands of Christians were killed and tortured under Diocletian:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3k...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Actually, we don't really know that.
The actual violent persecutions only lasted a few years and a) were not applied all over the Empire, Constansius, for example, shielded the Christians in Gaul and Britain for the violent persecutions; b) only rarely resulted in death. The first edict precise that it should be enforce without bloodshed. And later, when the executions started, they were only for the most defiant cases, for example, people openly defying the order to practice sacrifices. Obviously, quite a few Christians could chose to practice sacrifices to save their life and repent later, hence the faith was never in real danger. c)As I said, it was short lived, three years later, in 306CE, Constantine became the first Christian emperor. One of his first decision was to restore the Christians' right alongside all their confiscated properties.

There is the figure of 20.000 martyrs given for Nicomedia but little given to support such a high figure. It is possible, I guess, but it would certainly NOT be representative of what went on in the rest of the Empire.

 

[DOC]

So really your argument of consistency should be limited to the 5700 original Greek manuscripts. Of which incidentally there are no two which agree. Out of 5700 original Greek manuscripts, not a single one has the exact same text as any other one.

There are likely more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

From the article cited in post #406:

"Norman Geisler[7] cites widespread misunderstanding among critics as to “errors” in the Biblical manuscripts. Some estimated as many as 200,000 variant readings. First, these are not “errors” but only variations, the vast majority of which are strictly grammatical. Second, these readings are spread over more than 5,300 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter of one word in one verse in 2,000 manuscripts is counted as 2,000 “errors.” Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated only one in 60 of these variants has significance. This would leave the text 98.33% pure. Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 altered the meaning of the passage, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.”

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

 

[DOC]

Aaaand there he goes again with Windmill Ministries.

And there you go with another ad hom.